Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 1, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PST

3:30 pm
kim. i think it is a really nice when we can be on board in supporting a charter amendment for the school board and make it more accessible for people or regular parents, working run for office as a former a school board member, the work was comparable to what we do on the board of supervisors, but was very anxious and sometimes very angry parents, teachers and staff within the system as well, i tip my hat to the hard-working school board members. i also want to say it is a democratic reform to attach better compensation to the school board members. i also wanted to say the issue
3:31 pm
of autonomy of the school board and school district was so important that the superintendent -- school board members have to keep reminding us they are a separate state entity that has policy-making authority over the school district. i know that supervisor campos used to it buys us of that. this keeps the funding in the school district and allows the autonomy to set the compensation for school board members. so that is good. as the cost of living increases built in as well. it is a well thought through measure and i hope communities are educated as the democratic reform of our school system. president chiu: before our next speaker, i want to acknowledge supervisor jim gonzales. good to see you here.
3:32 pm
supervisor mirkarimi: in general, i support this. i had some concerns. i think the timing is a bit funky. i think there could have been perhaps greater thought in terms of how this could have been deployed for this election year. but i understand some of the arguments by by colleagues, which i support in what the objective is. what hasn't been said, but i want to add it to the calculus, since all the attention is placed on the board of education is that city college and there trusty's represent more of a population than the board of education does. the board of education in terms of the student population represents about 55,000
3:33 pm
students apply not mistaken in the unified school district. city college represents 70,000. that is a body that merits -- over 100,000 san francisco and collectively. that merit the same kind of supports and resources aimed by this particular endeavor as well. when these conversations come up, i hate -- i think the greater goal in the greater good of what we can do to assist those who are volunteering their time with a very paltry. amerasian or stipend, to be able to support the endeavors of making sure people have access to the kind of representation and access to the kind of full- time representation as demonstrated by those of the board of education but the city
3:34 pm
collies -- city college trustees this as well. it is something i don't think should be dismissed in this conversation. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: that right there is, as much as i appreciate the amendments that have been made, why i will be opposing this proposal. we do the school board and then community colleges next. we have had proposals for the planning commission in the past , there will be an mta proposal coming. it's one after the other. at a certain point, we have to recognize these folks are volunteers and if they don't want to do it, they don't have to do it. there are a lot of people who lost in the race in the board of education that would have been great commissioners. we never see a shortage of candidates.
3:35 pm
so i appreciate the amendments, it's a far better charter amendment then when it was introduced, but i don't think it's ready to be submitted to the ballot. on that point, now that the change to the conduct code is not going to be on, i changed allow the mayor to become cio next year, this would be only measure on the ballot. that takes away the focus of what did you election should be all about, which is the state budget. it also opens the door to us not getting the full reintegration from the state of california for the cost of this election. if it was just state ballot measures, i don't think we would have much of a fight. but if we are using the ballot to get local measures, we might get tougher time collecting from the state. i appreciate the changes, you almost got me, but not enough to get me to vote yes. >>supervisor farrell: from my
3:36 pm
perspective, i think it is a slippery slope and i appreciate the comments but relates to board that the planning commission and people is but a lot of hours not being rich emirate for what might be full time consideration. that's a huge problem for my point of view. there were a number of people that ran for a school board and did lose and people do every single year. the simple fact is for this year, it's the wrong time to be bringing this up. when teachers are paying for pencils for their school runs out of their own pockets and now we're going to increase over $200,000 and give it to people who already been elected and what they're getting into when we were running. i appreciate their time and their hours. i do not underestimate how time
3:37 pm
and effort and personal sacrifice goes into this position. but right now, this is the wrong measure and i similarly will not support for those reasons. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank supervisor kim for taking the lead on this item and i will respectfully disagree with the comments that have been made by a couple of my colleagues. my work as general counsel for the board of education for a number of years. i have seen firsthand the amount of time and energy that goes into the member of the board of education. while i recognize that timing is bad and everyone is struggling right now, i know that for many people who want to serve in that position, it is financially impossible for them to do it. i think it is important whether it is the board of education or
3:38 pm
the board of supervisors to make them accessible to people of all income levels. there is something to be said about someone who does not have a lot of money or doesn't have the ability to live on $500 in san francisco, having the time to actually serve on that board. there are segments of the community that need that voice and that representation on that board of education. so i don't think it's simply enough to say if they want to serve, they come forward or if they don't want to or can't afford it, then they can't. i do think it impacts who is heard and who is not heard on the board of education. we in san francisco are lucky we have the highest performing urban school district in the entire state of california and probably one of the top five urban school districts in the entire country.
3:39 pm
yet even though we have one of the best urban districts anywhere in the country, we have a huge achievement gap. the performance of certain students is below the performance in other districts. if you are african-americans to and, you are going to perform at a lower level in san francisco than in oakland. those communities need representation on that board of education. it is going to require having people who may not have the means who are not independently wealthy to be able to have the ability to serve. the modest amount being proposed by san francisco standards is not a lot of money. it will not allow someone to do this full time. they will probably still have to find additional compensation. but for the same reason i think it was a good idea of long time
3:40 pm
ago when supervisor matt gonzales made it possible for members of this board to get somewhat adequate compensation, i think it is a good idea to move in this direction with respect to the board of education. quite frankly, i don't know if there is ever the right time to bring this and i think arguing about the current economic conditions are cuts both ways. it is especially least tough financial times for people who are barely making ends meet on the board of education when they need this assistance. supervisor kim: just a clarification -- i believe there is another ballot measure and i want clarification from the city attorney's office. gary is a measure that has received the required number of signatures and if there is a june election call, there will already be and other local measure.
3:41 pm
president chiu: i would like to confirm with the department of elections, but i believe it would require a certain number of signatures. supervisor kim: what would be the deadline to take back this charter amendment if this was the only one going forward? >> the deadline would be this friday. supervisor kim: my understanding is we have another ballot measure going forward on the june election. if that is not the case, there would be some hesitancy on the part of the school district. they would not want this to be the only measure on the ballot, but if we have a measure on the ballot already, we would like to move this forward. i want to thank my colleagues and -- thank my colleagues for their support.
3:42 pm
i know many of my colleagues are not familiar with the board of education or the work that is involved in running the public school system. it is a separate community with many advocates and community- based organizations and have their committee and chair budget rules committees and ground that many ad hoc committees. just the meetings a loan which sometimes run six or seven hours of peace and usually have three or four per week, just the meetings alone are 15 to 20 hours a week. not including the number of hours we spend visiting schools, attending pta meetings, reaching out to the community, going to the same political events many of us attend ourselves. these are elected officials, not his famous sitting on the planning commission, which is a great deal of time as well. but there is an expectation from the community that when they support you, when they endorse
3:43 pm
you, you will attend the meetings and come to speak to them my regular basis. there is a level of accountability that is expected from city college trustees and committee members that i do not think is the same as being appointed to a commission on the city body. i do not see a slippery slope. i'm open to a discussion, but i know the amount of time and hours the board of education members spend to run our public schools. they are doing a great job and there are many obstacles and challenges they face. i also know how challenging it is to recruit quality candidates that reflect the diversity of our student body. that is due to the compensation set in the early 1980's and a dollar amount that may have been substantive but the time but is clearly not anymore. while there are many candidates that run for the board of education, there are not many serious quality candidates that run. if you meet with all of them,
3:44 pm
you know how hard it is to find good candidates and this is part of the reason. the last thing i will say is this has the support of the united educators of san francisco. many parent advocates, members of the community are not here today but they are supporting this. speaking about whether this is the appropriate time, for those who are not familiar, this has been in discussion for many, many years, at least 10 years. every year, the board of education has been told no, this is not the right year, all have budget cuts, the board of education is not popular, we are not happy with the superintendent. i don't think any year will be the right year to put this on the ballot. i also want to mention our own pace salary was raised on the board of supervisors. that was the appropriate thing to do. i don't think any of us say we should be volunteers in this position to serve our city. its huge sacrifice and not many
3:45 pm
of us are able to do it without getting paid. the last thing i will mention as we do -- i think she came in late, the president of the board of education here. i. thank you. -- want to recognize her. if you have any questions. >> are you saying depending on whether there are other measures you would support putting this on the ballot? supervisor kim: yes. if there was discussion -- of this was the only one, we would not have to front the cost. if there is a cost, that was another question i had. what is the cost of putting one local measure on the ballot? the last thing i will say is because we are letting the board of education determine the salary up to one-half of the teachers' salaries that will be held accountable in terms of the budget process. board members will keep in mind
3:46 pm
different challenges with the budget every year. >> i would ask the clerk's office to clarify some have that information. supervisor wiener: when this was in its original form, and we're going to be paying salary at of the general fund, i was prepared to vote against it. but it is important to keep in mind how limited this proposal is because -- and this is why i am supporting it. this does not require any compensation for school board members whatsoever. it does not take 1 cent out of our general funds. all it does is empower the school board to decide one way or another whether to have salaries. they would be accountable for doing that. there would be an article for the school board not to start this year and wait until the
3:47 pm
budget is a little bit better. i really don't understand why the city and county of san francisco charter would bar the school district from setting a tone policy. this allows them to make their own policy determination and at the cap on it of half of the first years of a teacher's salary. it could be less than that. the last point i will make is when this was set in the early '80s at $6,000 per year, we are now almost 30 years later. when you adjust that, it probably not quite $25,000 but it is close to it. this is a modest measure and as a result will be supporting it. supervisor avalos: for me, the comments that have been said, i will be supporting this measure as well. i do think it is important to be able to compensate school board members who spend a great
3:48 pm
deal of their time dealing with very complex issues. a good deal of time away from any of them have kids and are trying to improve the schools, it's not asking too much. my wife is a teacher and spends some of her pocket money for classroom aides. i think it is important that we have people who are looking who understand that very well, who are on the school board who can be compensated for the work they do. i do have a concern about whether june is the right time. the timing that is coming up, i believe the measure that will be on the ballot in june is a local measure that would skew the discussion, the understanding of this measure in a way that could negatively impacted. that is something i'm grappling with right now.
3:49 pm
supervisor cohen: thank you. i am going to be supporting this measure. there is a key point i want to highlight. supervisor wiener touched on it when he talked about what we had the opportunity to do here is empower the school district to continue to public education first. what this vote is actually signaling to the general public is our priority to public education. what we have here is an opportunity to modestly, at a very modest level, offer some kind of incentive for compensation to members who like to serve on the board of education. we as members of the board of supervisors have the ability to power this body but we are debating on whether it's too much, too little or if it's the
3:50 pm
right timing. all of those conversations to factoring to having good public policy and a healthy political discussion. however, what are we saying to the young public-school students watching this debate go on? we don't fund their programs. we are cutting after-school programs. we're talking about half of a first years teacher's salary. even the amendment itself is very modest and i'd been know how much of an incentive that would be to really recruit some top notch, quality -- not to say we don't have top-notch quality, excuse me -- let me choose my words carefully -- the conversation is too focused on the dollar amount and the time of our fiscal realities. we need to be paying attention
3:51 pm
to what the larger statement -- we value public education in this city. do we or do we not? if we do, we will be supporting this legislation. thank you. president chiu: we have gotten confirmation from the elections department that there is another measure that has been submitted by the school board. apparently related to the topic of neighborhood schools. is that correct? as a petition measure. will be another local measure on the ballot. any additional discussion? we have two items in front of us. is there a motion to support one and not support the other or should we do a roll-call vote on both?
3:52 pm
supervisor kim, my assumption is you want to make a motion to table 43 and support item 44? is there a second? seconded. if we could take a roll call vote on that. >> on the motion to table item 43 and approve item 44. [roll-call] there are eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: the motion passes. if we could now move to our
3:53 pm
second 3:00 special order, which is a items 45 and 46. >> sitting as a committee of the hole for a public hearing forepersons objected to the portions -- below and/or of the following streets -- with in the transit center project area. item 46 is from the land use and economic development hearing without recommendations, and ordnance arming -- ordering portions of the public right-of- way when the transit center area and the trans day joint powers authority. president chiu: we have a hearing regarding the order relating to the trends day projects. is there a representative that
3:54 pm
wishes to make a brief presentation on what the hearing is about today? >> good afternoon. i'm john updike, acting director of real estate. as part of the transit center development property rights beneath and above several city streets are needed by the trends date joint powers authority. the item before the board today is a public hearing regarding a proposed vacation and conveyance of these property rights. i have a map on the overhead that shows the general project area. the streets affected by this proposed action, more specifically are the streets announced in the item. fremont from net, to me that.
3:55 pm
-- folsom near as 6. -- full some near essex. howard between second and first. 2nd south of harrison and all of oscar alley. on august 5th, 2010, we had an option for a motion. the planning commission deemed the proposed vacation to be in conformity with the general plan and consistent priority policies. additionally come as a result of the board of approval of their resolution, which adopted the fifth addendum of the redevelopment project, it was found the proposed vacation will my trigger the need for subsequent environmental review per california resources code
3:56 pm
and sections 15162 of the guidelines. the department public-works has determined the areas to be vacated are not necessary for the city's present or prospective public street, sidewalk and service areas. separately, i have opined the conveyance furthers a public purpose in promoting a and -- promoting and facilitating public transportation. phenomenal sale price of $1 is appropriate. necessary easements' would be reserved for in place and functioning utilities. this vacation varies from most the board would see in that taking a look at the rendering, this is a shot of the proposed project from the website. we are only considering
3:57 pm
conveyance of subterranean and aerospace right to -- subterranean and airspace rights right now. this is an indicator where you see the train boxes below the street. that subterranean vacation of rights and air rights of love. the land rights above the street. there is a form of quick claim deed in the clerk's file on this matter. the deed requires the city to enter into a sidewalk maintenance agreement. we propose the final form reflects a change in timing relative to the sidewalk maintenance agreement so that the agreement is fully executed after the recording of a quick claim deed. they change is acceptable to the city attorney's office and city staff involved in this matter. we respectfully request this change be so reflected in any motion for approval. i am happy to be joined today by
3:58 pm
our senior program manager and the council and we're happy to answer any questions you have regarding the proposal. president chiu: any question to city staff? seeing none of, why don't we proceed to hear from any members of the public who wish to comment on this order. if you wish to comment on this topic, please step up to the microphone. each member of the public shall have of to two minutes. -- shall have up to two minutes. excuse me, are you planning to -- are there any members of the public who wish to speak with regard to this street vacation order? seeing none, this hearing is closed. item 46 is in the hands of the board. we could take a roll-call vote on this item.
3:59 pm
>> [roll-call] >> there are nine ayes. supervisor chiu: colleagues, to understand supervisor campos is coming back, at which point, i would like to move to the four- o'clock special order. hopefully supervisor campos will be moving